4.7 Article

Validation of a remote sensing based index of forest disturbance using streamwater nitrogen data

期刊

ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS
卷 9, 期 3, 页码 476-484

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2008.07.005

关键词

Water quality; Forest disturbance; Nitrate; Remote sensing

资金

  1. NSF-Ecosystems
  2. EPA-STAR
  3. NASA-interdisciplinary Science
  4. Nature Conservancy
  5. University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science [4200]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Vegetation disturbances are known to alter the functioning of forested ecosystems by contributing to export (leakage) of dissolved nitrogen (N), typically nitrate-N, from water-sheds that can contribute to acidification of acid-sensitive streams, leaching of base cations, and eutrophication of downstream receiving waters. Yet, at a landscape scale, direct evaluation of how disturbance is linked to spatial variability in N leakage is complicated by the fact that disturbances operate at different spatial scales, over different timescales, and at different intensities. In this paper we explore whether data from synoptic stream-water surveys conducted in an Appalachian oak-dominated forested river basin in western MD (USA) can be used to test and validate a scalable, synthetic, and integrative forest disturbance index (FDI) derived from Landsat imagery. In particular, we found support for the hypothesis that the interannual variation in spring baseflow total dissolved nitrogen (TDN) and nitrate-N concentrations measured at 35 randomly selected stream stations varied as a linear function of the change in FDI computed for the corresponding set of subwatersheds. Our results demonstrate that the combined effects of forest disturbances can be detected using synoptic water quality data. It appears that careful timing of the synoptic baseflow sampling under comparable phenological and hydrometeorological conditions increased our ability to identify a forest disturbance signal. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据